Coca-Cola Ordered to Pay Millions to Forklift Operator It Fired for ‘Deliberately Injuring Colleague’

The Uganda Industrial Court has ordered Century Bottling Company Limited, the Coca-Cola bottler, to pay Shs51.5 million to a former forklift operator whose dismissal followed allegations that he deliberately injured a colleague while operating machinery at the company.

In a ruling delivered on October 13, 2026, the court declared the dismissal of Asuman Mulindwa unlawful and unfair, finding that the company had failed to establish a valid, verifiable reason for terminating his employment.

The court’s decision turned on a disciplinary hearing in which the chairperson declared Mulindwa guilty based on investigations and witness statements, while the company’s witnesses who later testified in court admitted that they had not personally witnessed the incident.

The judgment also questioned the evidentiary value of the company’s disciplinary manual, which had not been signed by its managing director and for which there was no proof that it had been shared with Mulindwa.

“The Respondent failed to establish a valid, verifiable reason for dismissal,” the court said.

“Accordingly, the dismissal lacked substantive justification.”

The ruling was delivered by Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana, sitting with panellists Adrine Namara, Susan Nabirye and Michael Matovu.

THE INCIDENT THAT ENDED A LONG CAREER

Mulindwa had worked for Century Bottling for close to 18 years, rising from casual labourer to forklift operator.

By the time his employment ended, he was earning a monthly salary of Shs2,063,493.

The dispute arose from an incident on March 17, 2022, when the company accused him of dangerously operating a forklift and deliberately injuring a colleague, Bruno Mugarura.

Mulindwa denied the allegation.

The company suspended him and subsequently invited him to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for April 5, 2022. The notice, dated March 23, 2022, informed him of the allegations and outlined rights available to him during the process.

He was dismissed on April 25, 2022.

Mulindwa challenged the decision, arguing that the dismissal was unfair and that he had not been given a proper opportunity to defend himself. He also raised concerns about access to CCTV footage and the circumstances surrounding the disciplinary proceedings.

He asked the court to award compensation, severance pay, notice pay and repatriation costs, among other remedies. He also sought relief relating to a salary loan.

Century Bottling maintained that it had lawfully dismissed him.

But the court’s examination of the disciplinary record raised questions about whether the process had genuinely established his responsibility for the alleged misconduct.

A HEARING IS NOT ENOUGH

The court distinguished between holding a disciplinary hearing and establishing that an employee committed the offence alleged.

It found that the company had taken some steps towards procedural fairness. Mulindwa had received notice of the hearing 13 days in advance, and the notice outlined nine rights available to him. The court also found that he understood the charge against him.

His allegation that he had been denied union representation was not accepted because the court found insufficient evidence to support it.

However, the disciplinary record itself presented a more serious problem.

The minutes contained a statement by the chairperson declaring Mulindwa guilty based on investigations and statements from witnesses.

“Thank you so much Mulindwa for attending this hearing as required by the policy. According to my investigation and statements from the witnesses, Bruno, Gloria Kamusime, Ordrew Byamukama and Semalulu (MM) I find Mulindwa guilty of the offence charged against you,” the chairperson stated, according to the minutes reproduced in the judgment.

For the court, the statement raised concerns about whether the hearing had been conducted with an open mind.

“By recording an immediate pronouncement of guilt based on prior investigations and witness statements, without affording the Claimant the right to cross-examine accusers or present a defence, REX 13 does not demonstrate due process; rather, it affirmatively demonstrates pre-determination,” the court said.

The finding was central to the court’s assessment of the disciplinary proceedings.

A hearing, the judgment suggested, could not be treated as proof of fairness simply because an employee had been invited to attend. The process also had to allow the allegations to be tested and the employee’s response to be considered before a decision was reached.

THE UNSIGNED RULEBOOK

The court also scrutinised the disciplinary manual on which Century Bottling relied.

The company presented an extract from its human resources disciplinary manual as part of its case. But the document lacked a signature from the managing director, and the company did not establish that it had been distributed to Mulindwa.

Catherine Gita, the company’s human resources director, acknowledged that the manual had neither the managing director’s signature nor a date. She also had no proof that it had been shared with the claimant.

Abdurahman Kalim Semalulu, the plant and manufacturing manager, similarly provided no evidence that Mulindwa had agreed to be bound by the document.

Those gaps weakened the company’s reliance on the manual to define the alleged misconduct and justify dismissal.

The court found that the extract lacked the evidentiary value required of a rulebook establishing the standards and disciplinary consequences applicable to the employee.

The issue mattered because the company was seeking to defend a decision that had ended nearly 18 years of employment. Establishing that an employee had been accused of serious misconduct was not, by itself, enough to demonstrate that the dismissal was justified.

The employer still had to establish a valid reason for the decision.

THE MISSING WITNESSES

The court’s examination of the evidence presented during the proceedings further undermined the company’s case.

Gita and Semalulu, the two company witnesses who testified in court, admitted that neither had witnessed the incident involving the forklift and Mugarura.

The company did not call several people identified as eyewitnesses or individuals connected to the incident, including Gloria Twikirize, Michael Muhangi, Bruno Mugarura and Ordrew Byamukama.

Their absence left the court without direct testimony from the people who could have helped establish what had happened on March 17, 2022.

The court was therefore reluctant to accept the accounts provided by the company’s witnesses as sufficient proof of Mulindwa’s responsibility.

“This means that the evidence of RW1 and RW2 cannot be treated as direct evidence,” the court said.

“Therefore, we do not accept that the Respondent established the requisite nexus between the charge and the Claimant to plead substantive justification.”

The finding exposed the distinction between an employer’s internal conclusion and the evidence needed to defend that conclusion in court.

Century Bottling had accused Mulindwa of serious misconduct. But when the dismissal was challenged, the court found that the evidence presented did not establish the necessary connection between him and the alleged offence.

The court also addressed the relevance of an employee’s previous disciplinary record, stating: “The proof of misconduct must be present and not past.”

The observation underscored that an employer must establish the misconduct supporting the particular dismissal rather than rely on past disciplinary history as a substitute for proof.

Taken together, the missing eyewitness testimony, the limitations of the evidence presented and the problems surrounding the disciplinary manual left the company unable to substantiate the reason for terminating Mulindwa’s employment.

THE COURT’S AWARD

Having declared the dismissal unlawful and unfair, the court considered the financial remedies available to Mulindwa.

His lawyer had sought Shs100 million in general damages, severance pay of Shs41,785,733, one month’s salary of Shs2,063,493 in connection with the disciplinary process, three months’ notice pay, repatriation expenses and other relief.

The court did not grant every claim.

It awarded Mulindwa Shs37,135,674 in severance pay, Shs10,315,465 in general damages, Shs2,063,493 in additional notice pay and Shs2 million for repatriation.

The total award was Shs51,514,632, before interest.

The court ordered interest at 8 per cent a year on all monetary sums from the date of the award, October 13, 2026, until payment in full.

The notice-pay award arose from the statutory entitlement applicable to an employee who had served for more than 10 years.

Under section 57(3)(d) of the Employment Act, Mulindwa was entitled to three months’ notice. Based on his monthly salary, the entitlement amounted to Shs6,189,279.

The company had already paid Shs4,039,848 in wages, salary and terminal benefits on August 24, 2022. The court therefore ordered payment of the remaining Shs2,063,493.

It also awarded repatriation expenses under section 38(3) of the Employment Act, finding that an employee who had served for at least 10 years could qualify for the benefit regardless of where the employee had been recruited.

The court’s decision on general damages took into account the nature of the loss suffered by Mulindwa following the dismissal.

General damages may compensate for non-pecuniary harm, including emotional distress, injured feelings, reputational harm and mental anguish. Their assessment is discretionary and depends on the circumstances of each case.

In determining the amount, the court considered Mulindwa’s lengthy service, his age, his earnings and the disruption to his career. He was about 40 years old when he lost his job.

The court did not, however, find that the employer had acted with the degree of high-handedness that would justify a higher award.

It settled on Shs10,315,465, equivalent to approximately five months of his salary.

WHAT THE COURT DID NOT AWARD

Despite finding the dismissal unlawful and unfair, the court rejected some of Mulindwa’s claims.

It declined to impose the additional one-month salary sanction under section 65(4) of the Employment Act because it found that the company had been substantially procedurally fair at the initial stage of the disciplinary process.

The ruling therefore drew a distinction between the procedural steps the company had taken and its failure to establish substantive justification for the dismissal.

The court also declined to order Century Bottling to repay a loan Mulindwa had obtained from Stanbic Bank.

The loan documentation did not establish that the company had guaranteed repayment, and the court did not find a basis for directing the employer to settle the outstanding liability.

Nor did the court order the company to pay the litigation costs. It directed that each party bear its own costs.

A LESSON IN THE LIMITS OF DISCIPLINARY POWER

The judgment did not establish that employers are powerless to discipline workers accused of serious misconduct. Rather, it examined whether Century Bottling had demonstrated that its decision to dismiss Mulindwa was justified by the evidence.

The company had notified him of the hearing and proceeded with disciplinary action. But the court found that the evidence presented during the proceedings did not establish the necessary connection between Mulindwa and the alleged offence.

The disciplinary minutes also indicated that the chairperson had declared him guilty by reference to prior investigations and witness statements, while the witnesses who later testified in court had not personally seen the incident.

The unsigned disciplinary manual added another weakness to the company’s defence.

For Mulindwa, the consequences of the dismissal were substantial. After nearly 18 years at the company, he lost his job and challenged the decision through the Industrial Court.

The resulting award of Shs51.5 million, together with annual interest of 8 per cent, provided financial compensation for the dismissal and the other entitlements recognised by the court.

But the judgment’s most consequential finding was not the amount of money awarded. It was the court’s conclusion that Century Bottling had failed to establish a valid, verifiable reason for dismissing the forklift operator.

The court declared the dismissal unlawful and unfair and ordered the company to pay the sums specified in the ruling.

The judgment was delivered at Kampala on October 13, 2026.

You can read about other companies ordered to pay millions to employees they dismissed unfairly Here.